ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: In support of Sender ID

2004-09-03 12:51:31

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:53:59PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

They are providing information on potential deployment. I find that 
information valuable.

Also, lets not lose sight of the fact that all these various people and 
companies are actually agreeing to deploy Sender-ID. That is a big 
accomplishment for something that isn't even a standard yet.



I've thought about what you said above, and I agree with it.  I'm afraid
the recent discussions have gotten to me, and without clear focus from
the chairs, it seems to have become an "anything goes" topic.  It is
that to which I was reacting...and reacting poorly.  For that, I
apologize.

However, there's another issue underlying my reaction that I think still
holds water:  I wouldn't want to see the issue clouded by perceived
weight of name, or money, or implied size-of-support, which is what I
think the original IETF dictum regarding individuals was meant to
forestall:  Bob Everyperson saying, "I support/do not support foo" is
viewed -- often subconsciously and erroneously -- as having less weight
in the discussion when Well Known Multinational, Inc. comes in and says
the same thing, even though Mr. Everyperson's argument may be more
technically substantive, or when WKM, Inc. statement is simply one of
support or rejection, no more.

I have every confidence in the chairs that they will not allow such
things to unduly sway their decision with respect to consensus , but
such things nonetheless tend to colour the discussion, often negatively.

I've said my piece, and won't bring the issue up again.


-- 
Mark C. Langston            GOSSiP Project          Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org   http://sufficiently-advanced.net    
mark(_at_)seti(_dot_)org
Systems & Network Admin      Distributed               SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org       E-mail Reputation       http://www.seti.org


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>